Jury Trial !!! NO PLANES *ever* hitting *any* WTC & directed energy weapons used in WTC distruction.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


The poster of the above should leave the research to Dr Wood.

The point about the bathtub is that it did not sever and flood downtown Manhattan. What the poster mentions in a red herring.

Any rational person can see the spire turning to dust. Certainly, it would still be there if it didn't.

The above poster's constant use of the term "space beam" shows that he should step aside and leave the research to Dr Wood. It has been pointed out time and time again, that Wood/Reynolds have NEVER said the beam must have come from space: drjudywood.com...


One must wonder what that poster is up to. His post is surely filled with lots of snide remarks.

So CB, when are you ever going to get around to posting images showing where these energy beams cut the steel? There was hundreds of tons of steel laying around Ground Zero that I can post images of, so why don't you show me where the beams cut them?

reply to post by bsbray11


I never said the beams cut them

Wait I'm confused, the planes were holographic? Did someone forget to tell the passengers on those planes, because I'm pretty sure they didn't know. And apparently a few people got confused and thought they were flying on a real plane anyway because they made cell phone calls as it was being hijacked by holographic terrorists and brought the "hologram" down. The government then rushed in and crashed real planes after the "energy beam" so there would be real wreckage, and no one noticed? They also took the real passengers and are holding them prisoner because no one can know they really didn't die. Then we decided to pay Osama to take the blame because we all know Al-Quieda got the best end of this deal? Your honestly going to run with that?



[edit on 20-9-2007 by b309302]

reply to post by johnlear


While innocent until proven guilty may not apply to many these days, you can bet it would apply to them. We're talking about theooretical space beams here. This isn't trying to prove the use of missiles or some other technology that has been around for generations. The only speculation is the directed energy weapons theory, and the weapons themselves.

Heck, for a video project I'm on I'd love to be able to prove that they're using those same weapons for weather modification, but I can't, therefore I won't even mention it because that just takes stigmatizes you into "CT" realm, and then that's what you're remembered for. Look at Loose Change: the worlds focus has shifted into the weaknesses of it, not the strengths. I study the human psyche in these matters to great length. Does anybody else do the same and would like to challenge my conclusion?

If anybody wants action, and wants things to happen in regards to much of anything, you need a rock solid case that can be 'proven' / clearly demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt. We can't even get Bush-Cheney impeached with the collective laundry list that grows by the day, yet somehow we're going to convict the Pentagon on theoretical weapons and flimsy evidence? This movemtn is doomed if those who follow it don't all seek the actionable consensus issues and stick to them to get an actual public-backed investigation, not some show trial whose purpose is to liken 9/11 truthers with UFO league speculator kooks. Seeing these issues dominate consistently is a major blow to optimism in all that we face; otherwise I wouldn't even bother commenting.


I ask all of you this: Even if the technology in question here wasn't theoretical, and the evidence flimsy, is this the best place for us all to focus our energy on?

That same question is directed to all of the UFO crowd, TV fakery proponents, and even WTC CD believers for that matter (oh, and WTC Nukes, and so on). Is that / are they where ALL of the focus should be? We're in a major crisis America; the train has hopped the tracks, and we're all bickering over the seating arrangements. I got that line from the documentary "Stupidity", where it was referenced to the ingorant masses. Sadly, with all of the speculative factioned in-fighting and wasted time (the most precious commodity) etc, we're being reduced to just the same. Marginalized, like the masses... who we won't reach if we sound like the speculative crazies that they hope we are... so they can continue their lifestyles of willful ignorance. The masses WANT to dismiss anything of the conspiratorial nature that begs for taking action, and this stuff is what facilitates their desires. It's about creating debate where there is hardly any, and divide & conquer. Surely you can realize that in all of your wisdom John?

[edit on 20-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

The poster of the above should leave the research to Dr Wood.

Oh, you're right. She's a "Dr.", therefore I'll just take her word for it. I wont look at it myself and see if there's any evidence that even begins to hold up. I'll just be a sheep.

The point about the bathtub is that it did not sever and flood downtown Manhattan. What the poster mentions in a red herring.

It almost did. I mentioned it because that was one of her 'exhibits'. "Red Herring"? This is absurd.

Any rational person can see the spire turning to dust. Certainly, it would still be there if it didn't.

Go to my thread i posted, watch each video and everything, and then try to debate it there. I challenge you.

The above poster's constant use of the term "space beam" shows that he should step aside and leave the research to Dr Wood. It has been pointed out time and time again, that Wood/Reynolds have NEVER said the beam must have come from space: drjudywood.com...

Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform.

Ok, so they can't even specify what did it? They have a court case on theoretical weapons platform which they don't know could even do it nor where they came from? And I'm being irrational?

Add to that for the theory to be anything it begs to drift into the "TV Fakery" dimension, which has even more flaws and clearly demonstrated examples of actual TRICKERY to get people to buy it? I know a government disinfo psyop when I see one, and these take the cake.


[edit on 20-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I never said the beams cut them

Then what did they do? If you can't answer then your case doesn't even qualify as a theory. In fact I forgot to point out that Dr. Wood's entire website hardly equates to an actual theory:

theory
n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge
that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a
specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate
facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and
theory"
dict.die.net...

It's very convienent to make up stories with half the facts, and ignore what doesn't fit. Please explain the fourth plane that was obviously not holographic that was brought down by the passengers? The cell phone calls they made, stated very clearly it was terrorists hijacking planes. How does that fit into the holographic plane energy weapon theory? How do you explain wreckage from planes at the WTC and Pentagon? How do you explain the fact that holograms made a perfect plane sized hole in the WTC (Review footage, you can even see where wings and engine hit)? How do we explain the missing passangers? The fact that no directed energy weapon can be seen in any "original" footage? The fact that all the radar operators tracked the planes from the airport to the crash (they in on it)? And why would Osama take the blame? We destroyed his hold in Afghanistan and broke up Al-Quieda? What would he get out of this? None of it makes sense when you put it in the big picture.

The "Spires Turned to Dust" Challenge:

Empty your vacuum cleaner bag onto a nice sized surface, like a large rubbermaid storage container bin lid. Next figure out a way to elevate it about 8 feet up, but where whatever is propping it up can be snatched from undereath it. Next set up a video camera so you can come back show us. Now snatch the prop out from underneath, and see if the dust hits the ground at exactly the same time as the lid.

See if there is dust lingering in the air immediately after the lid drops. I'd wager money that there will be, and I dont gamble. For example, how is it possible for this dust to be chasing this guy down the street:


It should have hit the ground already.



[edit on 20-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by b309302



They wont answer up, but will continue to persist that it the way it was. He'll just tell you to let Judy Woods do all the research and form your conclusions for you. He wants you to be a sheep while discrediting the movement. Your questions are all Red Herrings, and the same goes if you debunk one of the claims. To challenge their "theory" counts as ad hominem attacks, and so on. I'm awestruck that these arguments persist here, and that the "FORUM UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY" still presists here after all this time. This goes back to Killtown and friends Forum-Rush-Fu operation many many months ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't the same people here under different names. They're what made me get sick of the 911 forums here for quite a while, and it's working again...


[edit on 20-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

If you have a theory that fits 99% of the facts.... why oh why would you want to replace it with a theory that only fits 30% of the facts... thats some real backwards science there. The original explination of what happened fits the facts much better then this theory. While yes it can "explain" somethings, it negates 50 facts for every 1 it tries to prove.

it was a plane alright,but it wasnt 2 commercial jetliners.they were military planes.there was a nuclear weapon attached to the bottom of the 2nd plane for sure,dont have enough video evidence for the 1st plane.the video of the 2nd plane was in fact faked.hollow aluminum jet wings dont cut through solid steel beams leaving an imprint of the wings-thats absurd.also,when a 911 truther telephoned the guy who supposedly took the picture of the 2nd plane hitting the tower,he refused to answer any questions about where exactly he was when taking the picture.furthermore,he directed the 911 truther to contact his attorney and hung up.cnn is in on it,he worked for them in "imagery" at the time and was subsequently let go.we will get to the bottom of this,and when we do,all hell will break loose because their are some evil people out there and im not referring to the 19 supposed hijackers.

Originally posted by rich1411
they were military planes. there was a nuclear weapon attached to the bottom of the 2nd plane for sure,

Why wouldn't they just keep the nuclear bomb inside the military planes cargo bay? Why risk blowing their cover?

dont have enough video evidence for the 1st plane.the video of the 2nd plane was in fact faked.

If you can find some photos of military planes with commerical jetliner style windows in them please let me know:
911review.org...

hollow aluminum jet wings dont cut through solid steel beams leaving an imprint of the wings-thats absurd.

So commercial jetliner wings are hollow, but military wings are not? Did you know that there's a considerable amount of titanium and depleted uranium inside boeing wings and engines? Only 2 of the strongest materials known to exist, DU being possibly the dense-est. Wings are pretty tough. Have you ever flown? Do you relaize the amount of force that is exerted on the wings of jumbo jets in flight? How often do you hear about wings ripping off of planes under normal operation? Ask John Lear to describe those dynamics to you, he's a real pilot.

we will get to the bottom of this,and when we do,all hell will break loose because their are some evil people out there and im not referring to the 19 supposed hijackers.

You're not going to mobilize the public with elementary misinfo and outlandish/speculative/nonprovable/improbable/ultra-exotic theories and irrational rhetoric such as that which this thread is dripping with. We can all pursue these various lackluster exoticfest theories to try and 'breka the big story', or we can all hone in on the issues which are true actionable consensus that everybody INCLUDING THE SKEPTICS can agree on (meaning completely irrefutable) to get a new investigation, otherwise add 911 to the JFK list things which will never see a true verdict or proper investigation. Your choice. Keep regurgitating these outlandish theories and the "Skeptic community" and the Establishment Media out there will continue to focus on making a laughing stock out of them so that they "can be right" and ignore the issues which warrant obvious action... and then comparing any true 911 skeptic as insane kook jobs 'like those crazies who don't believe planes hit the buildings' etc.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

the main problem is that the idea of a DEW use is maybe a good point, but the official case now uses the no-planes theory.

it looks more than outlandish. and who-the-f**k did give DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS the assignement to go to court with that yet unproven theory ?
I dont buy the holo thing .

after skimming the most recent, rude, disguising, snide remarks, by the "usual" crowd, I will not be spending (wasting) anymore of my time in this thread at this time.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


If you had a case, you'd be able to debate it here: answer the hard questions and put the refutations to shame. But you don't, and neither do the propagators of these merged speculative / disinfo theories.

I think regardless of what or who did it, the bottom line is that its a total fu*ked situation against innocent people

sometimes its like how much more pain would come to being if the truth was discovered, and I mean the ABSOLUTE truth

hmmmm makes you really wonder

bsbray has a excellent post on another thread that shows the amount of energy it would take for this "theory" to be possible. It is along the magnitude of greater than the amount of electricity generated on earth at this time. He has worked out the math AND given references. I have never bought this "theory" to begin with..But his research really puts a nail in this coffin.

does it have to be a laser? no.
we dont know what exactly does the military have, but microwave weapons were used in the iraq war.

If a microwave beam of that power was used, all electronics in the area would be dead. High voltage would be induced on the circuit board traces. Fire and black smoke (carbon) would become balls of super heated plasma and light up. People would also feel it and any/all moisture trapped in the concrete would turn to steam (all over the building) before the metal "melted".